SELECT cost-effectiveness — NNT analysis for MACE prevention

Moderator note: Please keep vendor-specific discussions in the Vendor Reviews section.

I have cleaned up a few off-topic posts. 👍

As a healthcare provider, I want to add some clinical context to this discussion on SELECT cost-effectiveness NNT analysis.

Building on what HealthEcon_DC said — the evidence base here is well-established. The key publications to reference are from the SURMOUNT program[1].

Key clinical points:

1. Efficacy is dose-dependent and typically requires 4-5 weeks to reach steady state
2. Side effect profile is predictable and usually manageable with standard protocols
3. Monitoring should include baseline labs and follow-up at 3-month intervals
4. Patient education significantly improves outcomes and adherence

Standard disclaimer: this is educational, not individualized medical advice.

mike_mod said:

I have cleaned up a few off-topic posts

Gonna push back on this one. SELECT cost-effectiveness NNT is not that straightforward in my experience. I have been on this for 18 months and the reality is messier than the trials suggest.

Don't get me wrong — the medication works. But adherence is harder than people admit. We should be honest about that.

Want to share my personal experience related to SELECT cost-effectiveness NNT since I think it might help others in a similar situation.

I started my GLP-1 journey in March 2025 at 283 lbs with metabolic syndrome. My telehealth provider prescribed semaglutide 0.25mg to start.

Now, 10 months later: I am down 73 lbs, my labs have normalized, and my sleep apnea has improved dramatically. The SELECT cost-effectiv aspect specifically was something that made a big difference in my journey.

This forum was my go-to resource throughout.

Saving this for reference. Quality thread.